Axcess — Design Accessibility Evaluation
REMOTE · AXCESS-MCP-SERVER.FLY.DEV · SCANNED AUG 3
Evaluates UI designs for WCAG accessibility issues automated scanners miss. Paid via x402 on Base.
Available components
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score →
Endpoint Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability63
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 778 tokens (~259/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management27
- Stability observed for 8 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Add this component to your MCP client. Where a client-specific snippet is available, pick your client below and copy it straight into your config; otherwise use the connection detail shown.
remote · axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev
claude mcp add --transport http sicxz-axcess https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp
[mcp_servers.sicxz-axcess] url = "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"sicxz-axcess": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add sicxz-axcess --url https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
sicxz-axcess:
url: "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp" {
"mcpServers": {
"sicxz-axcess": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 2 Aug 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Jul 26 +3
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 30 Jul 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 28 Jul 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Jul 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Jul 26 64
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 3 Aug 2026 · Probed https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=*.fly.dev | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 21 Jun 2026 | 19 Sept 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 503153e73302e4a0c89ebb83c4a741aac04 |
| SANs: *.fly.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| fly.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://axcess-mcp-server.fly.dev/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability.
evaluate_accessibility Evaluate UI Accessibility ~366
Evaluates UI elements for accessibility issues that automated scanners miss. COST: $0.01 USDC via x402 on Base-compatible EVM network per call. Checks beyond what axe/Lighthouse/WAVE catch at the design stage: - Touch targets below 24×24px (WCAG 2.5.8 AA hard fail) - Touch targets below 44×44px (WCAG 2.5.5 AAA recommended) - Information conveyed by color alone without a secondary indicator (WCAG 1.4.1) - Missing focus indicators on interactive elements (WCAG 2.4.7) - Focus rings thinner than 2px (WCAG 2.4.11) - Focus ring contrast below 3:1 against adjacent background (WCAG 2.4.11) - Interactive elements below the practical usability height floor Args: - elements: Array of 1–50 UI element objects - screen_name: Optional label for the evaluation report Each element requires: element_type. Provide width_px/height_px for touch target checks. Provide uses_color_only + secondary indicator flags for 1.4.1 checks. Provide is_interactive + focus_visible + focus indicator properties for focus checks. Returns: Structured report with: - Per-element scores (0–100) and specific issues - Severity levels (critical/major/minor) with WCAG references - What automated tools miss and why - Concrete fix recommendations - Overall score and verdict (pass/needs_work/fail) - Top issues sorted by severity
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| elements | array | yes | Array of UI elements to evaluate |
| screen_name | string | — | Name of the screen or component being evaluated |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
evaluate_typography Evaluate Typography Accessibility ~344
Evaluates typography elements against a principled accessibility rubric. COST: $0.05 USDC via x402 on Base-compatible EVM network per call. Goes beyond what axe/Lighthouse/WAVE can check — evaluates design judgment, not just numeric compliance. Catches issues like: - Contrast that passes WCAG 4.5:1 but fails visually due to thin font weight - Body text that meets minimum size requirements but is still too small for comfortable reading - Line heights that technically comply but impede readability for dyslexic users - Extended all-caps or italic text that passes all AA criteria but impairs reading - Text on gradient/image backgrounds where scanner sampling is unreliable - Heading sizes that are technically correct but visually indistinct from body Args: - elements: Array of 1–50 typography element objects with font/color properties - screen_name: Optional label for the evaluation report Each element requires: element_type, font_size, font_weight, line_height, color_hex, background_color_hex. Returns: Structured report with: - Per-element scores (0–100) - Specific issues with severity (critical/major/minor) - WCAG references and what automated tools miss - Concrete fix recommendations - Overall score and verdict (pass/needs_work/fail) - Top issues sorted by severity Example use: Extract text layer properties from Figma using get_design_context, pass the typography properties to this tool for evaluation before shipping.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| elements | array | yes | Array of typography elements to evaluate |
| screen_name | string | — | Name of the screen or component being evaluated |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_capabilities List Axcess Capabilities & Pricing ~68
Returns available evaluation tools, what they check, and their pricing. Call this first to understand what Axcess can evaluate and how much each evaluation costs. This tool is FREE. All evaluation tools require USDC payment on Base network. Returns: JSON with tool descriptions, pricing, and rubric categories.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.